Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Republic

SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 7:24:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In Plato's republic a society is posited that has a perfect amount of practical knowledge to keep its citizens optimally happy. Do you think that such a level of knowledge and therefore technology could be the optimal level Plato suggests and have we reached this level of knowledge?
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2017 5:29:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2017 7:24:01 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
In Plato's republic a society is posited that has a perfect amount of practical knowledge to keep its citizens optimally happy. Do you think that such a level of knowledge and therefore technology could be the optimal level Plato suggests and have we reached this level of knowledge?

Absolutely, but ambition and greed get in the way, along with sloth.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2017 5:35:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2017 5:29:16 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:24:01 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
In Plato's republic a society is posited that has a perfect amount of practical knowledge to keep its citizens optimally happy. Do you think that such a level of knowledge and therefore technology could be the optimal level Plato suggests and have we reached this level of knowledge?

Absolutely, but ambition and greed get in the way, along with sloth.

I am probably a little too fond of sloth myself. So have we reached out limit? Are we as knowledgeable as will optimize our happiness?
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Leaning
Posts: 2,779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2017 5:41:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I read that once, but was long ago. Didn't they already have the knowlege and technology back then? When he was describing an ideal society and all that?
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2017 5:46:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2017 5:41:28 AM, Leaning wrote:
I read that once, but was long ago. Didn't they already have the knowlege and technology back then? When he was describing an ideal society and all that?

I'm not sure if he thought his society had reached or over reached that point but my question for you is where do you think that line is if it exists at all.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2017 5:53:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2017 5:35:26 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/29/2017 5:29:16 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:24:01 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
In Plato's republic a society is posited that has a perfect amount of practical knowledge to keep its citizens optimally happy. Do you think that such a level of knowledge and therefore technology could be the optimal level Plato suggests and have we reached this level of knowledge?

Absolutely, but ambition and greed get in the way, along with sloth.

I am probably a little too fond of sloth myself. So have we reached out limit? Are we as knowledgeable as will optimize our happiness?

We are as knowledgeable as required, yes, and I firmly believe our happiness could be immediately sustained with minimal input and labor. We have all the readily accessible data bases of knowledge, which is easily accessible, easily replicated in terms of day-to-day requirements. The only major issues we would still need specialist trades on are the furthering technology (IT work, coding, etc), and durable goods that are not readily made (hi tech equipment, metal working, chemicals, etc).

Because we are no longer an agrarian society, we have 'outsourced' our needs to other people in exchange for... well, whatever specialty skill we ourselves do. We attempt to broker this through a common medium (money) which is imperfect at best. However, with the current levels of technology and technological dispersement that is possible, we can re-institute certain aspects of our lives we outsourced. Pretty much everyone with a home and neighborhood could, if willing, make growing co-ops in which lawn space is micro farmed, or used for raising small batches of poultry.

However should we do this, we need to consider some rather larger implications: in growing our own food, we have taken a rather large chunk of our drive for employ, the attainment of money to pay for the outsourcing to grow food is no longer required, ergo whatever skill we did goes vacant for more time, and when applied across the society as a whole, this shortage of labor contributing to communal ends (which is really what every job ever does, service the community on some level) grows. There would still be outsourcers for materials, of course (not everyone own lands), however their compensation would be much greater in the way of buying power.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Leaning
Posts: 2,779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2017 5:53:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well it get's easier if you kill everyone but your society and then reduce the numbers in your society to a number that is easy to control.

Takes a messed up individual, tech required to clear and maintain to the limit whatever living space you inhabit, and happy pills, indoctrination, reduce their intelligence.

Kinda seems like the opposite of the cave though. Makes me think of Anthem by Ayn Rand.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2017 6:23:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2017 5:53:11 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/29/2017 5:35:26 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/29/2017 5:29:16 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:24:01 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
In Plato's republic a society is posited that has a perfect amount of practical knowledge to keep its citizens optimally happy. Do you think that such a level of knowledge and therefore technology could be the optimal level Plato suggests and have we reached this level of knowledge?

Absolutely, but ambition and greed get in the way, along with sloth.

I am probably a little too fond of sloth myself. So have we reached out limit? Are we as knowledgeable as will optimize our happiness?


We are as knowledgeable as required, yes, and I firmly believe our happiness could be immediately sustained with minimal input and labor. We have all the readily accessible data bases of knowledge, which is easily accessible, easily replicated in terms of day-to-day requirements. The only major issues we would still need specialist trades on are the furthering technology (IT work, coding, etc), and durable goods that are not readily made (hi tech equipment, metal working, chemicals, etc).

Because we are no longer an agrarian society, we have 'outsourced' our needs to other people in exchange for... well, whatever specialty skill we ourselves do. We attempt to broker this through a common medium (money) which is imperfect at best. However, with the current levels of technology and technological dispersement that is possible, we can re-institute certain aspects of our lives we outsourced. Pretty much everyone with a home and neighborhood could, if willing, make growing co-ops in which lawn space is micro farmed, or used for raising small batches of poultry.

However should we do this, we need to consider some rather larger implications: in growing our own food, we have taken a rather large chunk of our drive for employ, the attainment of money to pay for the outsourcing to grow food is no longer required, ergo whatever skill we did goes vacant for more time, and when applied across the society as a whole, this shortage of labor contributing to communal ends (which is really what every job ever does, service the community on some level) grows. There would still be outsourcers for materials, of course (not everyone own lands), however their compensation would be much greater in the way of buying power.

So behavioral changes aside it's your oppinion that if we learn much more we will adversely affect our happiness?
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2017 6:26:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2017 5:53:16 AM, Leaning wrote:
Well it get's easier if you kill everyone but your society and then reduce the numbers in your society to a number that is easy to control.

Takes a messed up individual, tech required to clear and maintain to the limit whatever living space you inhabit, and happy pills, indoctrination, reduce their intelligence.

Kinda seems like the opposite of the cave though. Makes me think of Anthem by Ayn Rand.

Sorta messed up but okay let's roll with it hypothetically. So in the situation you describe would Plato's cap on necessary knowledge for a happy and healthy society still exists? Or to put it another way if they learn to much as a society, not necessarily as individuals, would their happiness be undermined?
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Leaning
Posts: 2,779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2017 6:35:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would say no. I don't think individual knowledge necessarily correlates with increased happiness.

If I remember right a lot of the Republic was all about lying to all the people in it and regulating how much knowledge they had, that certain people were made of baser metals and others higher ones, and only the special leaders can determine who has what. So it's natural you're a ditch digger because your essence was made from a low quality type of metal.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 9,590
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2017 2:31:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2017 6:23:04 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/29/2017 5:53:11 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/29/2017 5:35:26 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/29/2017 5:29:16 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:24:01 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
In Plato's republic a society is posited that has a perfect amount of practical knowledge to keep its citizens optimally happy. Do you think that such a level of knowledge and therefore technology could be the optimal level Plato suggests and have we reached this level of knowledge?

Absolutely, but ambition and greed get in the way, along with sloth.

I am probably a little too fond of sloth myself. So have we reached out limit? Are we as knowledgeable as will optimize our happiness?


We are as knowledgeable as required, yes, and I firmly believe our happiness could be immediately sustained with minimal input and labor. We have all the readily accessible data bases of knowledge, which is easily accessible, easily replicated in terms of day-to-day requirements. The only major issues we would still need specialist trades on are the furthering technology (IT work, coding, etc), and durable goods that are not readily made (hi tech equipment, metal working, chemicals, etc).

Because we are no longer an agrarian society, we have 'outsourced' our needs to other people in exchange for... well, whatever specialty skill we ourselves do. We attempt to broker this through a common medium (money) which is imperfect at best. However, with the current levels of technology and technological dispersement that is possible, we can re-institute certain aspects of our lives we outsourced. Pretty much everyone with a home and neighborhood could, if willing, make growing co-ops in which lawn space is micro farmed, or used for raising small batches of poultry.

However should we do this, we need to consider some rather larger implications: in growing our own food, we have taken a rather large chunk of our drive for employ, the attainment of money to pay for the outsourcing to grow food is no longer required, ergo whatever skill we did goes vacant for more time, and when applied across the society as a whole, this shortage of labor contributing to communal ends (which is really what every job ever does, service the community on some level) grows. There would still be outsourcers for materials, of course (not everyone own lands), however their compensation would be much greater in the way of buying power.

So behavioral changes aside it's your oppinion that if we learn much more we will adversely affect our happiness?

No, that if we abandon certain behaviors to achieve it (our happiness), we will have a much more difficult time in sorting out the society we are trying to be. Then, maybe, a more prosperous society could develop.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2017 3:37:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/30/2017 2:31:20 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/29/2017 6:23:04 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/29/2017 5:53:11 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/29/2017 5:35:26 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/29/2017 5:29:16 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:24:01 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
In Plato's republic a society is posited that has a perfect amount of practical knowledge to keep its citizens optimally happy. Do you think that such a level of knowledge and therefore technology could be the optimal level Plato suggests and have we reached this level of knowledge?

Absolutely, but ambition and greed get in the way, along with sloth.

I am probably a little too fond of sloth myself. So have we reached out limit? Are we as knowledgeable as will optimize our happiness?


We are as knowledgeable as required, yes, and I firmly believe our happiness could be immediately sustained with minimal input and labor. We have all the readily accessible data bases of knowledge, which is easily accessible, easily replicated in terms of day-to-day requirements. The only major issues we would still need specialist trades on are the furthering technology (IT work, coding, etc), and durable goods that are not readily made (hi tech equipment, metal working, chemicals, etc).

Because we are no longer an agrarian society, we have 'outsourced' our needs to other people in exchange for... well, whatever specialty skill we ourselves do. We attempt to broker this through a common medium (money) which is imperfect at best. However, with the current levels of technology and technological dispersement that is possible, we can re-institute certain aspects of our lives we outsourced. Pretty much everyone with a home and neighborhood could, if willing, make growing co-ops in which lawn space is micro farmed, or used for raising small batches of poultry.

However should we do this, we need to consider some rather larger implications: in growing our own food, we have taken a rather large chunk of our drive for employ, the attainment of money to pay for the outsourcing to grow food is no longer required, ergo whatever skill we did goes vacant for more time, and when applied across the society as a whole, this shortage of labor contributing to communal ends (which is really what every job ever does, service the community on some level) grows. There would still be outsourcers for materials, of course (not everyone own lands), however their compensation would be much greater in the way of buying power.

So behavioral changes aside it's your oppinion that if we learn much more we will adversely affect our happiness?

No, that if we abandon certain behaviors to achieve it (our happiness), we will have a much more difficult time in sorting out the society we are trying to be. Then, maybe, a more prosperous society could develop.

So in your oppinion a societies level of knowledge is a non issue when considering what makes that society content, or at least more knowledge and technology no matter how advanced they become will not have any clear adverse effects on societal happiness unless accompanied by corresponding "bad" behaviors?
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2018 2:58:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2018 12:52:57 AM, Leaning wrote:
Any changes in your own opinion on this subject? It's been a bit of time.

I'm not sure an optimum level of happiness is achievable in a pleasure seeking society. It doesn't matter what we know unless we institute healthy change. Clearly if there is a perfect golden mean for knowledge we have not achieved it and are possibly going in the wrong direction to find it.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Leaning
Posts: 2,779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2018 3:10:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, even defining optimum level of happiness could be difficult, subjective maybe to most people.

If you ran a dictatorship and conditioned people to accept and be happy with that, you could have an enormous impact on how they behaved.
Make it a mostly closed and controlled environment.
Doesn't seem to have worked for North Korea though I suppose.

If you gave people options they could take, such as if they are feeling stressed, they could hit a button and go talk to a counselor.
Record how often people do this and change the environment until they feel less and less stressed until you hit a minimum amount.

But, don't you think Bill Gates or several rich people could get together, make/build/buy a country/community/city of people willing to give up many of their freedoms if they thought it would lead to better lives?
If every single person wore a camera and had no to rudimentary knowledge in the technology of it, couldn't you completely eliminate crime and abuse? Even if it was only viewed as an alibi rather than constant surveillance.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2018 4:13:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2018 3:10:43 AM, Leaning wrote:
Well, even defining optimum level of happiness could be difficult, subjective maybe to most people.

First one would need to understand the fundamental difference between happiness and pleasure. One feels better in the short term which seems to make it the obvious choice (example, chocolate cake or salad? Obvo chocolate cake every time!!!) but this is not a sustainable happiness (in our example of chocolate cake vs salad one certainly tastes better but is very bad for your health and can be detrimental to your quality of life.

If you ran a dictatorship and conditioned people to accept and be happy with that, you could have an enormous impact on how they behaved.
Make it a mostly closed and controlled environment.
Doesn't seem to have worked for North Korea though I suppose.

Part of the problem is that ignorance is not bliss. Let us take your example and change it up a bit. Let's assume a hypothetical country called korth norea. It's just like north korea with two notable exceptions. One is that all the basic needs of its citizens are met, if not much more. The other is that it is a truly closed system it is the only society in a geographically isolated area. North korea is a brutal totalitarian dictatorship, subjectively as all governments have the potential to be tyrannical, so korth norea must also be. Here comes the problem, with no other nation to focus on the only "enemies" for the government to focus on is its citizens. Without such a civilization to observe I would still hypothesize that such a society would be maintainable (all civilizations fall, but people whose basic needs are met rarely openly revolt) but the issue is happiness.

If you gave people options they could take, such as if they are feeling stressed, they could hit a button and go talk to a counselor.
Record how often people do this and change the environment until they feel less and less stressed until you hit a minimum amount.

That's an interesting idea, what do you think of this?
https://youtu.be...

But, don't you think Bill Gates or several rich people could get together, make/build/buy a country/community/city of people willing to give up many of their freedoms if they thought it would lead to better lives?

Like the neighborhoods owned or formerly owned by Disney?
http://www.cracked.com...
Now my source is cracked so take it with a grain of salt but since this is mostly academic.

If every single person wore a camera and had no to rudimentary knowledge in the technology of it, couldn't you completely eliminate crime and abuse? Even if it was only viewed as an alibi rather than constant surveillance.

Everyone does things in private that they would not do in public either because they feel shame about it or because they know it would outrage someone. These range from the harmless to the disgusting to the harmful. Would you be happy if you were born into such a society and knew no ther way to live? What would you think of the technicians who actually maintained these cameras? As an leverage citizen would you suspect that they were circumventing the technology somehow? Do you think they would? Would you if you could?
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Leaning
Posts: 2,779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2018 12:43:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'll admit I think there is a difference between pleasure and happiness. And though I would often like to be rich, I feel doubt it alone and the luxuries it could bring would lead to happiness.

Personally I often suspect that ignorance Is bliss. Though I would choose to know in some cases.
Korth Norea hmm... True, examples are hard to find (To me). You say that the governments only enemy could be the citizens, I don't think that has to be true. If everyone's needs are provided for, then the people in charge would already have what they need, there would be no need to enrich their own coffers further.

A positive example could be parents. Parents are in total control of their children. There are good and bad parents, though most I hope to be good.

Negative example might be prison. Guards in control of a population, and caring/guarding them. But a prison population is hardly well adjusted individuals, nor are the guards adjusted to view their charges positively, or treat them well.

In my light reading of dictatorships, they seem to function when the dictator has full crushing power and allows the people no rights. But when he starts to allow them some rights, the people realize they are being oppressed and often jump the gun. Violent revolution that simply leads to a new repressive government.

That is not to say that I consider dictatorships good. All the ones I hear about are always f***ed up, and sound s***y to live in. Is a benevolent dictatorship impossible though?
Is not government and people by their mere existence a forced relationship and partnership in any case?

That's an interesting idea, what do you think of this?
Limp Bizkit?... (Shudder). I have always been doubtful of confessionals or counselor for my own use. Talking in this case more about preference than opinion on religion. I'd firstly see it as weak of myself (Though I would encourage others to go if they felt the need and would not see it as weak of them).
I find the concept that a priest would not report a crime to be committed in the future an odd concept. Not talking from experience of thought of my own, but if a person could not say Everything they need to, what is the point? Nor could I understand how you could trust government or individuals not to act if you told them something illegal you planned.
Be fine for most people though. I think.

Cracked
Hear a bit of those places, but alas cannot access Cracked on my work computer.

surveillance.
Everyone does things in private that they would not do in public either because they feel shame about it or because they know it would outrage someone. These range from the harmless to the disgusting to the harmful. Would you be happy if you were born into such a society and knew no ther way to live? What would you think of the technicians who actually maintained these cameras? As an leverage citizen would you suspect that they were circumventing the technology somehow? Do you think they would? Would you if you could?

Is that not all societies?
And even if not cameras, we still have simply the eyes of other people already. Or official workers such as the police or courts.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2018 2:41:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2018 12:43:12 AM, Leaning wrote:
I'll admit I think there is a difference between pleasure and happiness. And though I would often like to be rich, I feel doubt it alone and the luxuries it could bring would lead to happiness.

Personally I often suspect that ignorance Is bliss. Though I would choose to know in some cases.
Korth Norea hmm... True, examples are hard to find (To me). You say that the governments only enemy could be the citizens, I don't think that has to be true. If everyone's needs are provided for, then the people in charge would already have what they need, there would be no need to enrich their own coffers further.

It is a truly closed system it is the only society in a geographically isolated area. With no external enemies to focus on internalized threats would be the only concern.

A positive example could be parents. Parents are in total control of their children. There are good and bad parents, though most I hope to be good.

Negative example might be prison. Guards in control of a population, and caring/guarding them. But a prison population is hardly well adjusted individuals, nor are the guards adjusted to view their charges positively, or treat them well.

In my light reading of dictatorships, they seem to function when the dictator has full crushing power and allows the people no rights. But when he starts to allow them some rights, the people realize they are being oppressed and often jump the gun. Violent revolution that simply leads to a new repressive government.

That is an interesting idea, do you have any citation?

That is not to say that I consider dictatorships good. All the ones I hear about are always f***ed up, and sound s***y to live in. Is a benevolent dictatorship impossible though?
Is not government and people by their mere existence a forced relationship and partnership in any case?

What is impossible is a government that does not have the potential for tyranny. With each successive generation there is a chance that the new leaders will abuse their power.

That's an interesting idea, what do you think of this?
Limp Bizkit?... (Shudder). I have always been doubtful of confessionals or counselor for my own use. Talking in this case more about preference than opinion on religion. I'd firstly see it as weak of myself (Though I would encourage others to go if they felt the need and would not see it as weak of them).
I find the concept that a priest would not report a crime to be committed in the future an odd concept. Not talking from experience of thought of my own, but if a person could not say Everything they need to, what is the point? Nor could I understand how you could trust government or individuals not to act if you told them something illegal you planned.
Be fine for most people though. I think.

To believe that it would not be weak for others then how would it be weak of you? You surprised me with this one because you rarely make contradictory claims.

Cracked
Hear a bit of those places, but alas cannot access Cracked on my work computer.

surveillance.
Everyone does things in private that they would not do in public either because they feel shame about it or because they know it would outrage someone. These range from the harmless to the disgusting to the harmful. Would you be happy if you were born into such a society and knew no ther way to live? What would you think of the technicians who actually maintained these cameras? As an leverage citizen would you suspect that they were circumventing the technology somehow? Do you think they would? Would you if you could?

Is that not all societies?
And even if not cameras, we still have simply the eyes of other people already. Or official workers such as the police or courts.

That people with power are universally in a position to abuse that power (whether or not they actually do) is exactly my point.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Leaning
Posts: 2,779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2018 7:40:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Coup D'etat by Edward N. Luttwak
The Psychology of Dictatorship by Fathali M. Moghaddam

Wikipediaing the Shah of Iran and Mobutu Sese Seko

Were the main inspirations for that thought I would say.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2018 7:49:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2018 7:40:22 PM, Leaning wrote:
Coup D'etat by Edward N. Luttwak
The Psychology of Dictatorship by Fathali M. Moghaddam

Wikipediaing the Shah of Iran and Mobutu Sese Seko

Were the main inspirations for that thought I would say.

That people in power are in a position to abuse that power is not a difficult thing to figure out. Its like saying people are wet while swimming.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Leaning
Posts: 2,779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2018 8:53:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What if a country had a benevolent dictator?

More to the point. The successor is chosen by using clones and raising them in the exact same environment as the previous dictator.
The clones undergo testing throughout their growth so that the one most similar to some set standard is chosen as the next dictator.

This being an attempt to remove the flaws of hereditary rule
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2018 8:56:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2018 8:53:00 PM, Leaning wrote:
What if a country had a benevolent dictator?

More to the point. The successor is chosen by using clones and raising them in the exact same environment as the previous dictator.
The clones undergo testing throughout their growth so that the one most similar to some set standard is chosen as the next dictator.

This being an attempt to remove the flaws of hereditary rule

Honestly I don't know. If I had to guess however I would surmise that the society would evolve in small ways regardless of attempts to make it stay static and these small changes would add up over time until the dictator lost touch with his people. This would lead to resentment at least.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Leaning
Posts: 2,779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2018 2:48:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
To believe that it would not be weak for others then how would it be weak of you? You surprised me with this one because you rarely make contradictory claims.

Double standard I suppose. It is rather easy I think at times for people to hold at the same time notions that contradict one another. Hypocrisy, what religious people mean in a way that all men sin. We're all a bit flawed in our thinking maybe.

Back to post one though. When you say optimal... Is there a time limit for that?
Golden ages are something (I think) all 'great' countries have gone through. They would have been at their most optimal during those times. Though I'm going to think about golden ages of happiness rather than achievements of the nation, which aren't quite the same thing.

Do you mean optimal happiness would have to repeat forever?
Or do you view it as you could chart certain behaviors of humans and mark down what would make them happiest, and make that your goal?

Also comic of happiest person
https://www.smbc-comics.com...
Jouma
Posts: 130
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2018 6:22:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2017 7:24:01 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
In Plato's republic a society is posited that has a perfect amount of practical knowledge to keep its citizens optimally happy. Do you think that such a level of knowledge and therefore technology could be the optimal level Plato suggests and have we reached this level of knowledge?

But many countries are Democratic Republic even big power Germany.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 7,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2018 6:29:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2018 6:22:03 PM, Jouma wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:24:01 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
In Plato's republic a society is posited that has a perfect amount of practical knowledge to keep its citizens optimally happy. Do you think that such a level of knowledge and therefore technology could be the optimal level Plato suggests and have we reached this level of knowledge?

But many countries are Democratic Republic even big power Germany.

Are you actually familiar with the source material? Plato's republic does not endorse democracy and the question presented by the op is not concerned with what system of government is instituted but only with whether there is a level of knowledge that optimizes happiness.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
John_C_1812
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2018 4:55:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/4/2018 6:22:03 PM, Jouma wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:24:01 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
In Plato's republic a society is posited that has a perfect amount of practical knowledge to keep its citizens optimally happy. Do you think that such a level of knowledge and therefore technology could be the optimal level Plato suggests and have we reached this level of knowledge?

But many countries are Democratic Republic even big power Germany.

No the ideas of democracy has been sold by representatives for many decades as a retaliation to the legal argument made by such things a woman President, the legality of abortion, and the legal obligations nation" hold to the likely-hood of marriage, and why by law.

A United State can be proven as a form of democracy in a Court of law held by republic. Quite simply a democracy cannot hold a republic in the same way legally. So to finish the state created by decades of instruction.

A woman can be made by law to sit before the United States in Constitution as a witness speaking for all woman by basic principle. This can take place legally inside a Monarchy as well. Without question she cannot be made to do this legally for all men. It was possible with in the past with a Monarchy. (Precedent)
An abortion can only ever take place on something that has started. If it is told to be on something that is not started it is a lie. (Self-evident truth)

Marriage by legislation in state of licensing is declaring the natural citizenship of posterity as offspring, set forth by the United State of independence. Key point as note. The pledge of allegiance for the United States of America does not apply directly to the United States Constitution, or Declaration of Independence. We pledge to the flag of United States, then the republic for which the united states stand.
The United States Constitution holds by preamble a place for the posterity of those who serve its preservation.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.